Clinton

[jared_7]

I'm pretty sure he did. Pretty helpful in getting Democrats to vote for you if you've spent most of your career as an independent. He'll still run. I can't imagine it's possible to legally stop someone from running, no matter what promises they have made. There's a decent chance we could get a couple of independents running - Sanders to the left of Clinton and Bloomberg to the sane of Trump. Would make it a much more interesting election.

No need for Bloomberg to run, he and Clinton are two peas from the same pod. He was only going to run if Sandera got the Dem nod

They may be peas in a pod to you. I doubt that they are to a number of Republican voters, since after all he was elected as Mayor of NYC as a Republican. I guess it depends on whether he fancies being President.

He has all but endorsed Clinton. They are both fiscally republican and socially progressive, and establishment politicians. The only point of entering as an independent is if you believed there is a huge untapped or unrepresented group of people - what is Bloomberg's unrepresented group? He and Clinton will, by and large, be going after the exact same groups of people, which simply splits the vote.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

No need for Bloomberg to run, he and Clinton are two peas from the same pod. He was only going to run if Sandera got the Dem nod

They may be peas in a pod to you. I doubt that they are to a number of Republican voters, since after all he was elected as Mayor of NYC as a Republican. I guess it depends on whether he fancies being President.

He has all but endorsed Clinton. They are both fiscally republican and socially progressive, and establishment politicians. The only point of entering as an independent is if you believed there is a huge untapped or unrepresented group of people - what is Bloomberg's unrepresented group? He and Clinton will, by and large, be going after the exact same groups of people, which simply splits the vote.

Plenty of Republicans will never vote for Hillary, simply because she's Hillary and they loathe the Clintons but who also don't want to vote for Trump. As I say, it rather depends on whether he wants to be President, because this election would give him a pretty good shot.

[UGagain]

Plenty of Democrats will never vote for Clinton.

[UGagain]

depends on the accuracy of the sampling. Looks like they have a systemic problem in under-estimating Hillary votes. If they are using an old model for the numbers of black people registered/likey to vote then that would certainly cause it and with those large discrepancies being in predominantly southern states that would seem to me to be a likely cause.

Or its all a big conspiracy because god knows polls are never wrong and a widespread conspiracy for millions of votes is much more likely than the sort of sampling error that pollsters often make.

Again, it doesn't really matter, as it's an organisation, not the state. They can do what they like. But the more things like this, the more likely Bernie will run as an independent, and the more likely he would be to win...Doesn't matter if it's true or not.

The whole press campaign around Bernie is definitely something Corbyn's team should look at and learn from. It's been excellent.

Nope. The primaries are run by public officials in most states.

[UGagain]

No need for Bloomberg to run, he and Clinton are two peas from the same pod. He was only going to run if Sandera got the Dem nod

They may be peas in a pod to you. I doubt that they are to a number of Republican voters, since after all he was elected as Mayor of NYC as a Republican. I guess it depends on whether he fancies being President.

He has all but endorsed Clinton. They are both fiscally republican and socially progressive, and establishment politicians. The only point of entering as an independent is if you believed there is a huge untapped or unrepresented group of people - what is Bloomberg's unrepresented group? He and Clinton will, by and large, be going after the exact same groups of people, which simply splits the vote.

In which case Bernie, running on a write in campaign, would win.

[UGagain]

[UGagain]

depends on the accuracy of the sampling. Looks like they have a systemic problem in under-estimating Hillary votes. If they are using an old model for the numbers of black people registered/likey to vote then that would certainly cause it and with those large discrepancies being in predominantly southern states that would seem to me to be a likely cause.

Or its all a big conspiracy because god knows polls are never wrong and a widespread conspiracy for millions of votes is much more likely than the sort of sampling error that pollsters often make.

That's a truly astonishing 'analysis' from someone who claims to be smart enough to be a barrister.

Maybe you are the best WUM ever.

[Zhivago]

depends on the accuracy of the sampling. Looks like they have a systemic problem in under-estimating Hillary votes. If they are using an old model for the numbers of black people registered/likey to vote then that would certainly cause it and with those large discrepancies being in predominantly southern states that would seem to me to be a likely cause.

Or its all a big conspiracy because god knows polls are never wrong and a widespread conspiracy for millions of votes is much more likely than the sort of sampling error that pollsters often make.

That's a truly astonishing 'analysis' from someone who claims to be smart enough to be a barrister.

Maybe you are the best WUM ever.

As if a lawyer would know anything about statistics. Same goes for journalists and politicians too, such an innumerate bunch.

[UGagain]

depends on the accuracy of the sampling. Looks like they have a systemic problem in under-estimating Hillary votes. If they are using an old model for the numbers of black people registered/likey to vote then that would certainly cause it and with those large discrepancies being in predominantly southern states that would seem to me to be a likely cause.

Or its all a big conspiracy because god knows polls are never wrong and a widespread conspiracy for millions of votes is much more likely than the sort of sampling error that pollsters often make.

That's a truly astonishing 'analysis' from someone who claims to be smart enough to be a barrister.

Maybe you are the best WUM ever.

As if a lawyer would know anything about statistics. Same goes for journalists and politicians too, such an innumerate bunch.

My astonishment has nought to do with statistics but with the logic.

He's saying in effect that if the test for fraud suggests fraud the test must be wrong.

And further, that anyone who says otherwise is insane.

Authoritarianism at its finest.

[UKHamlet]

depends on the accuracy of the sampling. Looks like they have a systemic problem in under-estimating Hillary votes. If they are using an old model for the numbers of black people registered/likey to vote then that would certainly cause it and with those large discrepancies being in predominantly southern states that would seem to me to be a likely cause.

Or its all a big conspiracy because god knows polls are never wrong and a widespread conspiracy for millions of votes is much more likely than the sort of sampling error that pollsters often make.

Again, it doesn't really matter, as it's an organisation, not the state. They can do what they like. But the more things like this, the more likely Bernie will run as an independent, and the more likely he would be to win...Doesn't matter if it's true or not.

The whole press campaign around Bernie is definitely something Corbyn's team should look at and learn from. It's been excellent.

Nope. The primaries are run by public officials in most states.

But voter registration and ballot counting are increasingly run by private companies.

[UGagain]

Again, it doesn't really matter, as it's an organisation, not the state. They can do what they like. But the more things like this, the more likely Bernie will run as an independent, and the more likely he would be to win...Doesn't matter if it's true or not.

The whole press campaign around Bernie is definitely something Corbyn's team should look at and learn from. It's been excellent.

Nope. The primaries are run by public officials in most states.

But voter registration and ballot counting are increasingly run by private companies.

True but legally still a state function. The returning officers are state appointed officials.

[Stom]

TBH, this could be fraud, or it could be complete uselessness from the polling company. Perhaps they're not targeting the right people, or perhaps young people - more likely to vote Bernie - are ignoring them... There are flaws with exit polling...

[Eugene Wrayburn]

TBH, this could be fraud, or it could be complete uselessness from the polling company. Perhaps they're not targeting the right people, or perhaps young people - more likely to vote Bernie - are ignoring them... There are flaws with exit polling...

How dare you suggest such a thing. Exit polls (sampling under 2000 people) are there to check if there's fraud. Which is why they are commissioned by news organisations. None of whom are claiming voting fraud. How could there possibly be any error in that size of of sample?

[Zhivago]

TBH, this could be fraud, or it could be complete uselessness from the polling company. Perhaps they're not targeting the right people, or perhaps young people - more likely to vote Bernie - are ignoring them... There are flaws with exit polling...

How dare you suggest such a thing. Exit polls (sampling under 2000 people) are there to check if there's fraud. Which is why they are commissioned by news organisations. None of whom are claiming voting fraud. How could there possibly be any error in that size of of sample?

Difference is larger than the margin of error.

[UGagain]

TBH, this could be fraud, or it could be complete uselessness from the polling company. Perhaps they're not targeting the right people, or perhaps young people - more likely to vote Bernie - are ignoring them... There are flaws with exit polling...

Dude please.

Exit polls are used to detect fraud.

[UGagain]

TBH, this could be fraud, or it could be complete uselessness from the polling company. Perhaps they're not targeting the right people, or perhaps young people - more likely to vote Bernie - are ignoring them... There are flaws with exit polling...

How dare you suggest such a thing. Exit polls (sampling under 2000 people) are there to check if there's fraud. Which is why they are commissioned by news organisations. None of whom are claiming voting fraud. How could there possibly be any error in that size of of sample?

Outside of the USA they are commissioned by the US government to detect election fraud.

[rowan]

Couple of good articles here:

"Like Obama, Hillary Clinton is a liberal internationalist and a strong believer in American exceptionalism, meaning she is convinced that the world looks to America for leadership, that US involvement everywhere is unavoidable as well as desirable, that US-based multinational corporations are a positive force for global development, and that the US should be ready to commit force in support of humanitarian ideals and American values—but not necessarily in accordance with US or international laws—as much as because of concrete strategic interests. "

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/25/ ... diplomacy/

"Without hesitation, Clinton condemned her Muslim supporters, returned their donations and refused to meet with Arab and Muslim Americans for the remainder of her campaign…"

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/25/ ... lim-money/

[UGagain]

It's funny in a sad way that Eugene believes in the integrity of the corporate media.

Even Fox News gives to a Clinton Super PAC.

[UGagain]

[Sandydragon]

TBH, this could be fraud, or it could be complete uselessness from the polling company. Perhaps they're not targeting the right people, or perhaps young people - more likely to vote Bernie - are ignoring them... There are flaws with exit polling...

Dude please.

Exit polls are used to detect fraud.

Its a p*ss poor way of achieving that objective given that I can say one thing to the pollster and then vote in a completely different way.

[Sandydragon]

Of course differences in exit polls and the actual results are proof of fraud, yet the fact that more Democrats are voting for Hilary than Bernie is conveniently ignored. Perhaps his supports are just making more noise?

[jared_7]

Of course differences in exit polls and the actual results are proof of fraud, yet the fact that more Democrats are voting for Hilary than Bernie is conveniently ignored. Perhaps his supports are just making more noise?

Are you completely ignoring the entire conversation we had just a couple of days ago? Clinton is winning the vote amongst longstanding Democrats, no one is doubting that. The issue is the voting process and DNC going out of its way to make it extremely difficult for new members or independents, among who Sanders is completely wiping the floor with Clinton, from participating in what is supposed to be an open process backed by public office.

I've already given you the example of NY, but in case you wanted an update the DNC has refused to accept the over 90,000 voter ballots from Brooklyn, A Sanders area, that were "lost" on the day and are now being taken to court by the public for not allowing those people to have their say, to which they have said they will fight. Yes, thats right, they are going to fight 90,000 registered Democrats having their votes counted.

[jared_7]

Another example, Iowa. One of the first primaries where most pollsters have now said the chances are Sanders probably won, but the DNC was so determined to get Clinton off to a winning start they called it way before any specialists said it was possible to do so. Sanders' team questioned the result and threatened to appeal and were told by the DNC they would fight an appeal. Winning by half a percent is very different to losing by half a percent, one creates momentum and there is evidence to support the fact people can be swayed into supporting the winner.

These things add up.

[morepork]

Most people here are pretty much convinced it is being rigged for Clinton. The whole Democrat system lets them do just that. I don't see why anyone would even debate that.

[Sandydragon]

Of course differences in exit polls and the actual results are proof of fraud, yet the fact that more Democrats are voting for Hilary than Bernie is conveniently ignored. Perhaps his supports are just making more noise?

Are you completely ignoring the entire conversation we had just a couple of days ago? Clinton is winning the vote amongst longstanding Democrats, no one is doubting that. The issue is the voting process and DNC going out of its way to make it extremely difficult for new members or independents, among who Sanders is completely wiping the floor with Clinton, from participating in what is supposed to be an open process backed by public office.

I've already given you the example of NY, but in case you wanted an update the DNC has refused to accept the over 90,000 voter ballots from Brooklyn, A Sanders area, that were "lost" on the day and are now being taken to court by the public for not allowing those people to have their say, to which they have said they will fight. Yes, thats right, they are going to fight 90,000 registered Democrats having their votes counted.

I think we have already established that we disagree over the rights of independents to vote in this at all. Its a party candidate selection. Why should Democrats allow non-Democrats to vote at all? Its not their problem there isn't a third party.

Did the 90K voters register in time? I accept that in many cases there seems to have been utter ineptitude in the process, which seems to be overly complicated. Without knowing why the 90K were denied the ability to vote its difficult to argue for or against what the DNC is doing. If the 90K aren't eligible to vote then they are right to deny them.

Even if Sanders had won in those states, the overall majority of the voters would still favor Clinton. That may well sway the super-delegates to vote for her, especially as she leads in delegates anyway and those 2 states would not change that. The fact is that Bernie is running a spirited campaign against a deeply unpopular candidate but he isn't winning. Claiming a widespread conspiracy doesn't change the fact that the majority of registered Democrats still prefer Clinton.